Fall 2011, New shows catch-all - Page 2

Things I Thought Before Deleting "Terra Nova" from My DVR Queue 20 Minutes In:

Everything that is happening is ridiculously contrived and horribly executed.

This show remains terrible.

Oh, look... a dinosaur.  Ah, fuck this shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD 

Things I Thought Before Deleting "Terra Nova" from My DVR Queue 20 Minutes In:

 

Everything that is happening is ridiculously contrived and horribly executed.

 

This show remains terrible.

 

Oh, look... a dinosaur.  Ah, fuck this shit.

 

 

... the fuck were you doing at my house last night?

I don't think I'm going to follow any of the new shows this year. Homeland is the only one left that's making me interested. Then it's off for the mid-season shows.

I implore people to check out Suburgatory tonight on ABC. Smart writing, very funny. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Murder 

I implore people to check out Suburgatory tonight on ABC. Smart writing, very funny. 

Yeah, dug Suburgatory.  Fun writing, fun cast.  Tudyk, Ana Gasteyer, Cheryl Hines, the girl from Weeds, bizarro Emma Stone, bizarro me (seriously, I've been told I look like Sisto for years, even by people that know him in person.)  Will definitely be back next week.

Yeah, I laughed out loud quite a bit during Suburgatory, much more than I anticipated. In fact, both The Middle and Suburgatory were superior to last night's Modern Family.

I'm giving you guys virtual high fives. Men of taste and distinction.

Sorry, guys, don't get the love for that one.  It felt like a played-out cross between Dead like Me and Daria - 10 years too late and not half as funny.  Plus, having the protagonists be transplants from Manhattan gave the two-dimensional, cartoonish view of suburbia a mean-spiritedness that neither of those shows had (sort of an only-I-get-to-make-fun-of-my-family kind of thing).  Some of that will probably get toned down as the show goes on and fleshes out the characters, and I do love a lot of the actors on this (weird seeing Jeremy Sisto playing the dad of a teenager, though).  I'll give another couple episodes.

Suburgatory was rather pleasant.  It's weird to me that Sisto is like responsible dad dude now.  Honestly, though, I'm just waiting for Not Quite Cougar Town to come back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace 

Plus, having the protagonists be transplants from Manhattan gave the two-dimensional, cartoonish view of suburbia a mean-spiritedness that neither of those shows had (sort of an only-I-get-to-make-fun-of-my-family kind of thing). 

Well to me, the cartoonish-ness of the suburbs was part of the point -- these were certainly no suburbs I'm familiar with, nor were they Stepford Wives-ish perfect family units. This wasn't meanness being directed at middle-class families, or middle-class values. At any rate, all I can go by when all is said and done is how much I laughed, and I laughed a pretty good bit.

Just gotta say, I loves me some On Demand. It's a great way to watch television you don't otherwise care enough to pay attention to.

I'll probably check out Suburgatory once it's available, clumsy portmanteau for a title notwithstanding.

Up All Night is actually pretty good. If NBC moved it to Thursdays, they'd have a pretty solid two-hour block of comedy.

New Girl was abysmal. Yeah, we get it Zooey Deschanel's character, you're quirky. Dial it down already. And Damon Wayans Jr. is a perfect storm of talentlessness and nepotism.

How is Prime Suspect so far? I dug the original BBC version and like Mario Bello, but haven't mustered the enthusiasm to invest in another hour-long drama.

Suburgatory was kinda "meh."  Not a bad show, but nothing special either.

Happy Endings was actually pretty good.  It's not a "new show" but I didn't watch it last season when it premiered, but the writing and acting on it was pretty solid.

The second episode of New Girl was pretty underwhelming, as was last night's episode of Up All Night.  In fact, I'd say both Up All Night and Free Agents were pretty poor yesterday.

Prime Suspect had a pretty good first episode.  We'll see how Ep 2 fares tonight.

Wow, the gay son's from Shameless beard cleaned up really well. And save for a couple of missteps she carried the episode pretty well. Suburgatory earned a few episodes of goodwill. I'd have liked it more if it had been a bit meaner. But it's not going for that. And I got a bit of Stars Hollow vibe from the suburbs so it has that going for it.

I've gotta admit, I'm enjoying the shit out of Revenge.  It's a trashy mix of Dynasty, The Count of Monte Cristo and the LOST flashback structure.   It has a laughably black & white All-Rich-People-Are-Manipulative-Scumbags theme that I can get behind.  

Plus, Madeleine Stowe?  I would still absolutely hit that.  

Was the 2nd episode any good? I am seriously considering to folow this once it hits my shores.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon West will kill Again 

Happy Endings was actually pretty good.  It's not a "new show" but I didn't watch it last season when it premiered, but the writing and acting on it was pretty solid.

Been watching the reruns over the summer, and it's been pretty consistently funny.  It's not gonna knock Community or Parks and Rec off my dvr, but it's on my second-tier sitcom list with Cougartown and Raising Hope.  Shit, I watch too much tv.

Didn't dig Suburgatory much.  Love the cast.  Love the idea.  Laughed once.  I just can't get into shows that stick realistic characters into exaggerated, unrealistic situations and dialogue.  Just doesn't do anything for me.   Same reason I can't get into stuff like 30 Rock, Scrubs (somewhat) or Community.  The writing is just so dang hammy.  I will try a few more to see if they can reign it in a bit.

This fall just seems full of shows I really want to like, but can't.

I really wanted to like Free Agents, if only so that I'd be able to watch Gil...er, Anthony Stewart Head in something again.

I really wanted to like Up All Night because damn it, Will Arnett needs to be on my TV more.

I wanted to like New Girl because I've enjoyed Deschanel in a lot of her movie roles.

I didn't even bother checking out Ringer, despite my love for SMG.

I expect the worst from Ryan Murphy's new show when it debuts, despite the presence of Connie Britton.

The theme for this fall seems to be "When bad shows happen to good actors".

I really don't understand the love for New Girl. It hasn't gotten great reviews, but the overall impression seems to be positive. I've just found it to be grating.

I have to check out Suburgatory now that I've heard good things. The premise didn't grab me at all, but good word of mouth and Alan Tudyk are really all I need.

The best looking new show has yet to premiere: Homeland on Showtime. I'm not sure how American Horror Story is going to work as a series, but FX has earned an automatic look at everything they do.

Person of Interest is the only new network show I've even found tolerable. Fingers crossed for cable to save us (again)!

Homeland is absolutely fantastic. Highly recommend it. Like a cross between Rubicon and 24.

Pan Am is slick, glossy, contrived in terms of presenting us up-tempo storylines that encapsulate every theme relevant to the sixties, the women are too beautiful and the men just a bit too dashing.  It's like Mad Men on meth.

I loved it and can't wait till the next episode.  Two big thumbs up for 60s lingerie.  Gotta see if I can get a Pan Am stewardess costume in my wife and/or favorite hooker's size.

I gave Ringer a good smacking around over at Guy.com, if anyone's interested.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Murder 

Homeland is absolutely fantastic. Highly recommend it. Like a cross between Rubicon and 24.

This just sold me on that show better than any of the actual advertising did. Going to have to check out episode one tonight.

Looks like The Playboy Club is this season's first casualty. Didn't watch it. Don't care.

Any speculations on what's next?

TCD, That is a shame about the cancellation of...The Playboy Club.  It was a fun show, set in the 60's.  Of the 3 1960's set series, The Playboy Club was a more interesting show than either Pan Am or the Overrated Mad Men!  

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD 

Looks like The Playboy Club is this season's first casualty. Didn't watch it. Don't care.

 

Any speculations on what's next?

Good.  The sooner Amber Heard goes back to making R-rated movies, the happier everyone will be.

Seconded. Charlie Angels probably is a gonner as well.

Hope they keep Revenge though.

Ratty, I would've thought alot of people would have Loved to see Amber Heard in a Playboy Bunny outfit, with a...Bevy Of Beautiful and very...Well Rounded actresses.  It is too bad there will not be a...Drive Angry 2: Driving Angrier, for her to be in.

felix, Charlie's Angels, could be gone as well?  UGH.  I hope at least...Pan Am, continues to...Fly the Friendly Skies of Audience Approval!  I am happy there are...X-Cellent, Cutting Edge,...X-Men Anime, and Blade Anime to look forward to on the G4 Channel!

I've seen Amber Heard naked. I don't need to watch a bad show to see her not-naked.

The Playboy Club not ending up on cable still makes no sense.

I still can't believe they thought a Playboy show would have worked anywhere but HBO/Showtime

Yeah, I still didn't understand that thinking by NBC.  Even with all that being said, you can't kill a show like that after 2-3 episodes...you have to let it sink in and find an audience. But nobody does that anymore from the big 4, do they?

I think the statistics show that if you don't start out with at least a decent audience, it's not ever going to get to the level necessary to recoup the costs so better to just drop it earlier.  On rare occasions shows build audiences, but the growth after the premiere is fairly slow usually and for expensive shows is probably not worth it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontEATnachos 

I think the statistics show that if you don't start out with at least a decent audience, it's not ever going to get to the level necessary to recoup the costs so better to just drop it earlier.  On rare occasions shows build audiences, but the growth after the premiere is fairly slow usually and for expensive shows is probably not worth it.

That's interesting.  Also, perhaps they watched the show and realized it fucking sucks. 

I'm just laughing at the thought of a network canceling a show that makes them a ton of money and has a lot of viewers just because they decide it sucks.

Quality is only a factor when a show is on the cusp of being canceled.  If it's really lowly rated or really highly rated, quality doesn't really affect the decision making much.

I would say quality hinges on time slots. If a shitty show premieres after a strong lead-in and loses a lot of that audience, it's going to be ditched (see: everything sandwiched between Friends and Seinfeld in the 90's). But if it's any good, they'll either keep it on, or move it around on the schedule, in hopes that it will find an audience elsewhere (Arrested Development used to lose a huge chunk of the Simpsons viewers, for reasons I just do not understand).

So, if a show loses a whole lot of it's lead-in, and it's a "Boston Common," it will be cancelled. If it's something a little different, it might survive, in the hopes the ratings will spike, or there might be a ratings fluke (i.e. the show is watched by the richest households, which would get advertisers' attentions - "24" staved off cancellation after its poorly-rated first season with these statistics).

That being said, The Playboy Club was a VERY expensive show, and there is just no time to nurture that versus something cheaper like, say, "Las Vegas," which I think NBC kept on the air for like seven years or something despite never being a strong ratings performer.

Is quality EVER a factor, even for bubble shows? If I were a cynic I'd just assume the only thought process is "is this making money, or will it be sustainable enough to keep going until we CAN make money from it?"

Yeah, but it's not about 'quality' it's still about ratings/money.  A show that bleeds viewers is actually not getting good ratings.  And while the network may publicly trumpet the amazing ratings for marketing purposes, the ratings at the end of the show are probably the real ones used by networks for their decisions.

I'd wager perceived 'quality' does come into play for bubble shows because, as Dr. Murder suggested, those that are considered a higher quality have a higher likelihood to lead to more money.  Whether it's directly by running a show long enough to get it to syndication/DVD sales or indirectly by demonstrating a network's willingness to give shows a shot to helping to obtain better programming, the networks are like most large corporations primarily motivated by money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontEATnachos 

I'm just laughing at the thought of a network canceling a show that makes them a ton of money and has a lot of viewers just because they decide it sucks.

 

Quality is only a factor when a show is on the cusp of being canceled.  If it's really lowly rated or really highly rated, quality doesn't really affect the decision making much.

You do realize we're talking about Playboy Club, right?  A show with awful ratings?  We're not talking about a "show that makes [a ton] of money and has a lot of viewers ..." we're talking about a show with neither.

Your analysis that a "really lowly rated" show might not be given time to grow an audience, irrespective of perceived quality or critical reception, is flat-out wrong.  I'd bother to cite examples of shows that were given a chance to grow, but you can go do your own homework.  Playboy Club was both a ratings bomb AND a critical bomb. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overlord 

You do realize we're talking about Playboy Club, right?  A show with awful ratings?  We're not talking about a "show that makes [a ton] of money and has a lot of viewers ..." we're talking about a show with neither.

Yes, that was exactly my point.  Were the show critically lambasted/lampooned whatever you want to call it and still got great ratings, it wouldn't be canceled.  The 'quality' is only a factor if the show is getting bad ratings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overlord 

Your analysis that a "really lowly rated" show might not be given time to grow an audience, irrespective of perceived quality or critical reception, is flat-out wrong.  I'd bother to cite examples of shows that were given a chance to grow, but you can go do your own homework.  Playboy Club was both a ratings bomb AND a critical bomb. 

I wasn't arguing that ALL shows aren't provided an opportunity to grow if they are low-rated but have good critical reception.  My point was that there are instances when even extremely positive word-of-mouth does nothing to keep a show from getting canceled.

It's rare, but positive word of mouth can absolutely keep a series in production even when ratings have fallen well below cancellation levels. (Not forever, obviously, but for a few seasons.) Veronica Mars is one obvious example. Chuck is another. If those shows weren't rabidly supported by both critics and a small group of fans, they'd have never lasted as long as they did.

There are other factors when these types of shows get renewed, including how expensive the show is and how many promising series a network has to potentially replace it, but critical acclaim can indeed help in some specific cases and may even be be the deciding factor.

Chuck lives because of some brilliant sponsorship deals they've made (Subway, mostly), and the producers' ability to keep the costs down. I haven't seen a single critic say a word about Chuck since its premiere. So it's kind of an anomaly. Also, no one watches NBC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Chuck lives because of some brilliant sponsorship deals they've made (Subway, mostly), and the producers' ability to keep the costs down. I haven't seen a single critic say a word about Chuck since its premiere. So it's kind of an anomaly. Also, no one watches NBC.

Then you don't read much TV criticism because for its first three years, it was a critics' darling, especially online where Alan Sepinwall, Mo Ryan and some other notables rallied their asses off for that show. The producers of Chuck have actually thanked Sepinwall in public and credited him for saving the show. Yes, the Subway deal helped seal the deal, but it would never even have gotten that far had critics (and fans) not been pushing for NBC to find a way to make it work.

The point is that those decisions are mostly driven by money.  Chuck makes them some money or at least loses less than trying to replace it would cost.  So NBC keeps it around.

And if I can recall, Veronica Mars actually had pretty decent ratings at first and it kind of dropped after that.  Shows that have had decent ratings often are given a chance to try to get back to that.  Plus, it was the CW ....

My original argument was mainly that if a show gets extremely low ratings for its premiere.  There's only a very, very slim chance that it would end up being a show that makes the network a lot of money.  So from their point of view, canceling an expensive show early on is generally the safe fiscal move.

Overlord then suggested that it was canceled because it sucked.  And I then said that it sucking is only a factor if it's not getting good ratings.  I maybe should have said "making the network money" but viewed them as being synonymous.  Either way, it was never really argued that a well received show might not get some extra time, merely that being critically appreciated did not actually guarantee that a low rated show would get renewed.

I merely suggest that the primary motivator behind all of these decisions is some analysis by the network on the probability that the show will make them some money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontEATnachos 

Chuck makes them some money or at least loses less than trying to replace it would cost.

Well, Chuck maybe makes more (or loses less) than a replacement show would. You never know. But this is indeed NBC, where -- thanks to the creative sinkhole it's stuck in -- gambling on a new show is never a wise bet.

It's actually pretty impressive how NBC manages to consistently lower its ratings each season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontEATnachos 

It's actually pretty impressive how NBC manages to consistently lower its ratings each season.

Yep. It's kind of ridiculous how good they are at failing. But, hey, I figure whatever keeps Parks and Rec on the air works for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zak chase 

Yep. It's kind of ridiculous how good they are at failing. But, hey, I figure whatever keeps Parks and Rec on the air works for me.

I like the way you think.  You should be a writer, or something!

Careful, ABC's hot on their tail!

Wait, what is this balderdash about Alan fucking Sepinwall keeping a show from cancellation? I love his writing, but... seriously, now.

Hey, I just tweeted about "Free Agents." Maybe that gives it another week!

Seriously loving the hell out of Suburgatory. 2nd episode made me laugh ever more than the 1st. Jane Levy is the find of the season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Wait, what is this balderdash about Alan fucking Sepinwall keeping a show from cancellation? I love his writing, but... seriously, now.

 

Hey, I just tweeted about "Free Agents." Maybe that gives it another week!

What? Where?